Announcements

Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules. Here's the simplified version:
Don't insinuate Pedo. Warning and or timeout for a first offense. PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses
Don't out members. See above for penalties. Caveat: if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game.
If you see spam posts, report it to the mods. We do not hang out in every thread 24/7
If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.
We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking. There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious. There is no standard, we will know it when we see it. If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining. Use your best judgement.
Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious. Deal with it. Welcome to anarchy.
If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to. They will be explained to you soon enough.

Content count

Joined

Last visited

Community Reputation

About TJSoCal

A possibility, but to borrow a golf term I think it's a "rub of the green." In any PHRF race some boats are going to be advantaged and some disadvantaged by the particular conditions, and I don't think it's predictable enough for someone to try to game it.

So if you put B between A and C (so A is leading on the outside, B in the middle, C on the inside and trailing, then all three boats would be overlapped even if C's bow was behind A's transom. If this alignment pertained when A reached the zone, B would thereafter owe mark room to C (even though B had not yet reached the zone) and A would owe mark room to both B and C.
Is that correct?

More the autopilot, and I think they've changed the SIs for cruising class to avoid a repeat.
For Bill, if it's just one boat, why not just give them their non-spin rating and let them race with their regular class?

That sounds like a textbook case of "reasonable doubt" and 18.2e gives the benefit of the doubt to the boat claiming no overlap.
I agree in that scenario outside boat may shut the door, as long as they do everything reasonably possible to avoid contact. But driving the inside boat into the mark is perfectly kosher, and inside boat would not be exonerated for breaking rule 31 (or 18.2b if they fail to give the outside boat mark room).

Not exactly, I think.
As noted, RRS 18.2-e says that if there's "reasonable doubt" about whether a boat obtained an overlap, it is presumed not to exist. If you have a much better view of the overlap than the other boat, you can probably establish reasonable doubt to a protest committee.
If the other boat is clear astern when the first boat reaches the zone but insists on taking mark room to which she is not entitled, the clear ahead/outside boat would be bound by rule 14 to avoid contact but could/should protest the inside boat for breaking 18.2-b.
No hails are required, but if it were me I'd hail something line "no overlap, no room" to discourage the other boat from breaking the rule and/or to support my position in the protest room.

I agree, the notice that the SaS requirement would be enforced last year was kind of late so there were limited opportunities for either live or online training so it was reasonable to waive it last year. But no reason to waive it this year.
Will NOSA be enforcing the requirement by anything other than the honor system? Do we need to dig out our certificates?

Noticed that SER 3.1.2 (PFD crotch straps) and SER 4.3.2 (Safety at Sea seminar) which have been waived in the past are not excepted in this year's NOR.
Can it be assumed that NOSA intends to require both this year?

S doesn't appear to bear away until after contact - makes me wonder if she put her helm down or if the course change was as a result of the sharp tug on the spinnaker...
In any case I don't think there's a rule 16 issue.